Lorne, yes they are the rules Sport Authority of Thailand, which were produced by the Boxing Board of Sport, they are an English translation of the rules used in the main stadiums. I do not disagree with anyone who suggests there is a strong argument that for English speaking Muay Thai officials, the rules could and should be written more clearly and include notes on interpretation.

Nevertheless, however clearly rules are written, they do have to be interpreted to translate written statements into what actually happens in practice in a sport. All sports have to do this.

Nokweed's statement you cite, is just as much an interpretation of the written rules as is Radom Na Bangchang interpretation and Wan Chai Prowsee's, that judging Muay Thai is like a marathon. Perhaps more pertinently, Random Na Bangchang contributed significantly to writing those particular rules and Nokweed would not have.

What is clear very is that the system used for judging in Thailand, whatever people feel are its influences and limitations, is extremely consistent, far more so than international boxing. Judging in the UK (on major shows with trained judges) is also extremely consistent now.

What consistent judging means is that athletes can train in a specific way to win using those criteria. In the past in the UK we had no consistently applied criteria and that limited athletes’ development here. I believe Muay Thai has developed here significantly in recent years. Training and testing officials alongside more people travelling to train in Thailand has contributed to this.

We are not yet at the level of Thailand in terms of athlete development. However, if people like the style and skill demonstrated by boxers (Nak Muay) there, they would do well to remember that the judging criteria s applied in Thailand has contributed in part in shaping those skills.